DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 1, 2015, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Calcite, aragonite and vaterite are pure calcium
carbonate minerals. Industrially important source rocks which
are predominantly calcium carbonate include limestone, chalk,
marble and travertine.[/quote]
Limestone and Marble
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
Results
[quote]
These minerals make up more than 80% of the rock. Other common
minerals include mica (muscovite and biotite) and hornblende
(see amphibole). The chemical composition of granite is
typically 70-77% silica, 11-13% alumina, 3-5% potassium oxide,
3-5% soda, 1% lime, 2-3% total iron, and less than 1% magnesia
and titania.[/quote]
Granite
HTML https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS485US486&q=granite+chemical+composition
HTML https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS485US486&q=granite+chemical+composition
Around the turn of the century (not this last one but the one
before that!), I imagine there was a bit of a commotion among
British archeologists. You see, British archaeologist Sir
Flinder Petrie published his [font=times new roman]study of
"Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh".[/font]
[center][img width=320
height=180]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280115194757.png[/img][/center]
British archaeologist Sir Flinder Petrie worked in Egypt from
1880 for around 40 years. He credited the ancient Egyptians with
methods that "we are only now coming to understand” (i.e. around
1900 by presenting evidence in his study of "Pyramids and
Temples of Gizeh" proving that the ancient Egyptians used tools
such as straight saws, circular saws, and even lathes.). :o
[center][img width=320
height=180]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270115141559.png[/img][/center]
Possible British Royal Society Erudite, Measured, Prudent and
Scientific Comments on the study: Do you mean to say that those
Egyptian primitive savages could work stone like we can in
England!!? Bollocks! Balderdash! Preposterous! The very idea is
repugnant. SNIFF!
Look here Flinder, what would Darwin say? Evolution goes
forward, my good man, not backwards! Where's my snuff box?
James, bring me a glass of Port!
I must say Flinder, this is most irregular! I don't care what
the Germans say, lathes were invented in England!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Ancient Egyptians, you
say? ::) I hear people that spend too much time down there go
balmy. ;) ;D
[quote]Machining technology was in its infancy in the early
1900’s, and it is only in recent decades that modern-looking
machine tool marks in Egyptian workpieces have been fully
recognized.[/quote]
HTML http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa-opinion-guest-authors/forgotten-stones-aswan-quarry-egypt-001984
HTML http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa-opinion-guest-authors/forgotten-stones-aswan-quarry-egypt-001984
Here's small vase in the Petrie identified collection.
[img width=640
height=460]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215163536.jpeg[/img]
Beautiful Granite Vase dated to be from 2,800 BC or earlier
This one piece is so flawlessly turned that the entire bowl
(about 9" in diameter, fully hollowed out including an undercut
of the 3" opening in the top) balances perfectly (the top rests
horizontally when the bowl is placed on a glass shelf) on a
round tipped bottom no bigger than the size and shape of the tip
of a hen's egg.
It's made of Granite. The attempted "debunking" of ancient
Egyptian machine technology (see Experiments in Egyptian
Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt by Denys
A. Stocks) through the making of a few vases using hand tools
was conveniently done on Limestone, NOT Granite. Yes, Limestone
and Marble are made out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Granite
has SOME CACO3 but has mostly other, much harder minerals.
Limestone is relatively soft and easily HAND WORKABLE, whereas
Granite and marble are much, much harder. PLEASE don't make me
provide you with a hardness value, how hardness is determined by
modern science and industry and how they measure it. Google it
if you don't believe me and don't pull the hairsplitting stuff
on me. I know of what I speak.
Also, PLEASE don't bring up potter's wheels.; they are USELESS
for stoneworking.
Granite and Marble cannot be worked by hand to get the results
Petrie observed and documented. And even Limestone worked by
hand cannot get the symmetrical tolerances observed in Egyptian
workpieces. Denys A. Stocks produced some crude specimens (see
pictures of his "craftsmanship" on the internet. LOL!). Stocks,
of course ;D, explained that, if he had years and years of
training back in ancient Egypt, he would have certainly attained
the quality and precision of the Petrie collection.
[img width=320
height=240]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215144153.png[/img]
[b]Please observe the following "minor" detail about the
pictured Granite vase:[/b]
[img width=640
height=560]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215164542.jpeg[/img]
Bottom of Granite Vase dated to be from 2,800 BC or earlier
perfectly balanced on a flat surface.
This requires that the entire bowl have a symmetrical wall
thickness without any substantial error! (With a base area so
tiny - less than .15 " sq - any asymmetry in a material as dense
as granite would produce a lean in the balance of the finished
piece.)
NO, the bottom isn't SUPER THICK to produce balancing in spite
of the "hand made asymmetry". Others have tried that
hairsplitting, but logical, argument already. You can always go
back to "those ancient craftsmen sure could make some great hand
made stuff" speculation, of course. But don't call THAT science!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
WE
cannot DO THAT by hand NOW. That much, at least, is the accepted
scientific consensus. The speculation by some Egyptologist
archeologists that they COULD do that by hand in ancient Egypt
is just that. But that's their story and they are sticking to
it!
My response to this evidence free speculation cloaked as
science:
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215144837.png[/img]
HTML http://pinetreeweb.com/petrie.jpg
I am certain Sir William Flinders Petrie, grandfather of
archaeology, who introduced science and methodology into the
subject, would have scoffed at that speculation.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://amerikaihirujsag.com/wp-content/themes/nextmagazine/inc/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://amerikaihirujsag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Sir-Flinders-Petrie-qpr.jpg&w=590&h=315&zc=1[/img]
In 1892 Sir Flinder Petrie was appointed as Edwards professor at
University College London, the first person to hold a chair in
Egyptology in Britain.
Here's a google image search on Petrie collection vases:
HTML https://www.google.com/search?q=petrie+collection+granite+vases&newwindow=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS485US486&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=N6fOVP6lNcKfggSmxIHgCw&ved=0CFgQsAQ&biw=973&bih=394
HTML https://www.google.com/search?q=petrie+collection+granite+vases&newwindow=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS485US486&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=N6fOVP6lNcKfggSmxIHgCw&ved=0CFgQsAQ&biw=973&bih=394
Now let's move on to some large workpieces.
Ancient Egyptian Workpieces Evidence Advanced Technology
The language of science and technology doesn’t have the same
freedom as speech. So even though the tools and machines have
not survived the thousands of years since their use, we have to
assume, by objective analysis of the evidence, that they did
exist.
The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if we
ignore the question of how they were produced, we are still
faced with the question of why such precision was needed.
Revelation of new data invariably raises new questions. In this
case it’s understandable to hear, "Where are the machines?"
Machines are tools. The question should be applied universally
and can be asked of anyone who believes other methods may have
been used. The truth is that no tools have been found to explain
any theory on how the pyramids were built or granite boxes were
cut! More than eighty pyramids have been discovered in Egypt,
and the tools that built them have never been found.
Even if we accepted the notion that copper tools are capable of
producing these incredible artifacts, the few copper implements
that have been uncovered do not represent the number of such
tools that would have been used if every stonemason who worked
on the pyramids at just the Giza site owned one or two. In the
Great Pyramid alone, there are an estimated 2,300,000 blocks of
stone, both limestone and granite, weighing between 2½ tons and
70 tons each. That is a mountain of evidence, and there are no
tools surviving to explain its creation.
The principle of "Occam's Razor," where the simplest means of
manufacturing holds force until proven inadequate, has guided my
attempt to understand the pyramid builders' methods. With
Egyptologists, there is one component of this principle that has
been lacking. The simplest methods do not satisfy the evidence,
and they have been reluctant to consider other less simple
methods.
There is little doubt that the capabilities of the ancient
pyramid builders have been seriously underestimated. The most
distinct evidence that I can relate is the precision and mastery
of machining technologies that have only been recognized in
recent years.
Copper Chisels to work Granite? ???
One can gather by reading Petrie’s work that he involved himself
in some extensive research regarding the tools that were
employed in cutting hard stone. Even so, there is a persisting
belief among some Egyptologists that the granite used in the
Great Pyramid was cut using copper chisels. I.E.S. Edwards,
British Egyptologist and the world's foremost expert on
pyramids, makes the following statement.
“Quarrymen of the Pyramid age would have accused Greek historian
Strabo of understatement as they hacked at the stubborn granite
of Aswan. Their axes and chisels were made of copper hardened by
hammering.” (Edwards, I.E.S. Ancient Egypt, Page 89. (1978 -
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.)
Hopefully, besides mainstream Egyptologists, such as Mark Lehner
and IES Edwards, (RIP) other Egyptologists do not suggest that
the copper chisels, that can now be found in the Cairo Museum,
were representative of the tools used to build the pyramids. If
they were I would strongly suggest that they make an effort to
learn about the materials and processes that they are proposing
by actually creating one of these artifacts.
To identify copper as the metal used for cutting granite is like
saying that aluminum could be cut using a chisel fashioned out
of butter.
HTML http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html
HTML http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html
Physical Cause and Effect Workpiece Machining in Ancient Egypt
What follows is a more feasible and logical method, and it
provides an answer to the question of techniques used by the
ancient Egyptians in drilling into granite.
The fact that the feedrate spiral is symmetrical is quite
remarkable considering the proposed method of cutting. The taper
indicates an increase in the cutting surface area of the drill
as it cut deeper, hence an increase in the resistance.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215004844.png[/img]
A uniform feed under these conditions, using manpower, would be
impossible. Petrie theorized that a ton or two of pressure was
applied to a tubular drill consisting of bronze inset with
jewels. However, this doesn’t take into consideration that under
several thousand pounds pressure the jewels would undoubtedly
work their way into the softer substance, leaving the granite
relatively unscathed after the attack. Nor does this method
explain the groove being deeper through the quartz.
High Tech Tubular Drilling
Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are clearly the
most astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to
indicate the extent to which knowledge and technology was
practiced in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a
technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as
"trepanning."
This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means
of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the
material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core
out of the hole. It was not only evident in the holes that
Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons
who had done the trepanning.
Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a core taken
out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he (Petrie)
wrote,
[quote]"the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the
circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out
of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." [/quote]
After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an
incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the
drill) for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was
completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this
feedrate.
Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to
explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an
engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an
anomaly. The characteristics of the holes, the cores that came
out of them, and the tool marks indicated an impossibility.
Three distinct characteristics of the hole and core, as
illustrated, make the artifacts extremely remarkable.
They are:
A taper on both the hole and the core.
A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers showing that
the drill advanced into the granite at a feed rate of .100 inch
per revolution of the drill.
The confounding fact that the spiral groove cut deeper through
the quartz than through the softer feldspar.
In conventional machining the reverse would be the case. In
1983, Mr. Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton,
Ohio, told me that in drilling granite, diamond drills, rotating
at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch
in 5 minutes.
In 1996, Eric Leither of Trustone Corp, told me that these
parameters haven't changed since then. The feedrate of modern
drills, therefore, calculates to be .0002 inch per revolution,
indicating that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their
granite with a feed rate that was 500 times greater or deeper
per revolution of the drill than modern drills. ;D
The other characteristics also create a problem for modern
drills. They cut a tapered hole with a spiral groove that was
cut deeper through the harder constituent of the granite. If
conventional machining methods cannot answer just one of these
questions, how do we answer all three?
The application of ultrasonic machining is the only method that
completely satisfies logic, from a technical viewpoint, and
explains all noted phenomena.
Ultrasonic machining is the oscillatory motion of a tool that
chips away material, like a jackhammer chipping away at a piece
of concrete pavement, except much faster and not as measurable
in its reciprocation. The ultrasonic tool-bit, vibrating at
19,000 to 25,000 cycles per second (Hertz) has found unique
application in the precision machining of odd-shaped holes in
hard, brittle material such as hardened steels, carbides,
ceramics and semiconductors. An abrasive slurry or paste is used
to accelerate the cutting action.
Modern Stone cutters are Queried
I have contacted four precision granite manufacturers in the US
and haven’t been able to find one who can do this kind of work.
With Eric Leither of Tru-Stone Corp, I discussed in a letter the
technical feasibility of creating several Egyptian artifacts,
including the giant granite boxes found in the bedrock tunnels
the temple of Serapeum at Saqqarra. He responded as follows:
[quote]"Dear Christopher,
First I would like to thank you for providing me with all the
fascinating information. Most people never get the opportunity
to take part in something like this. You mentioned to me that
the box was derived from one solid block of granite. A piece of
granite of that size is estimated to weigh 200,000 pounds if it
was Sierra White granite which weighs approximately 175 lb. per
cubic foot.
If a piece of that size was available, the cost would be
enormous. Just the raw piece of rock would cost somewhere in the
area of $115,000.00.
This price does not include cutting the block to size or any
freight charges. The next obvious problem would be the
transportation. There would be many special permits issued by
the D.O.T. and would cost thousands of dollars.
From the information that I gathered from your fax, the
Egyptians moved this piece of granite nearly 500 miles. That is
an incredible achievement for a society that existed hundreds of
years ago."[/quote]
Eric went on to say that his company did not have the equipment
or capabilities to produce the boxes in this manner. He said
that his company would create the boxes in 5 pieces, ship them
to the customer and bolt them together on site.
Agelbert NOTE: The above is a brief summary of a detailed
article at the link below. There is much detailed information on
stone cutting techniques.
Each and every one of the 'primitive tools did it' Egyptologist
claims are dispassionately deconstructed to show they are based
on evidence free conjecture, not science.
High Tech machine tools are the only explanation that fits. And
that High Tech is right there with the best techniques we have
for working these types of stones at present.
So you can imagine that Petrie, the fellow that first wrote
about these Egyptian workpieces in 1880, did some serious head
scratching at the time. Only NOW can we get those kinds of
results in granite.
Enjoy.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
HTML http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html
HTML http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced%20Machining.html
The book "Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking
Technology in Ancient Egypt" By Denys A. Stocks explaining how
the Egyptians used primitive tools to do what they did,
including experiments he performed with copper and sand, have
been proven insufficient to explain the smoothness, feed rate,
striations and tolerances on the Egyptian workpieces.
The book, celebrated by Egyptologists, is full of "I suggest
this" and "I imagine that" WITHOUT presenting how, at the drill
rate and poor precision he was achieving with copper hand
drilling, this massive work could have been accomplished.
So it goes. But perhaps some Doomers will accept it because
Stocks is "Credentialed". Just Google it and be prepared for
lots of calm, prudent, erudite baloney about how he FINALLY
realized how EASY it was to do all this with primitive tools and
what poor deluded FOOLS people who see evidence of high tech
machine tools are. This arrogant mocking puffery is par for the
course in the 'don't confuse us with facts, our minds are made
up' "scientific" Egyptologist archeologist community.
I prefer evidence to consensus pseudo scientific cheerleading
(more at link below).
HTML http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=283526&t=282614&v=f
HTML http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=283526&t=282614&v=f
After studying the physical evidence from ancient Egypt and the
facts about hand versus machine working of granite, marble or
limestone workpieces, this is my response when someone claims
the ancient Egyptians had no machines and achieved all their
workmanship with copper hand tools and sand:
[img width=640
height=430]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png[/img]
#Post#: 2633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 1, 2015, 10:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Greer's tiny humanoid
I found a video by Dr. Greer that summarizes the findings. I
stand corrected on the age at time of death; it was aged 6 to 8
years old at time of death, not 12.
Dr. Greer says there are possibly more specimens to be obtained.
Dr. Nolan confirms that if more phenotypes identical to the
humanoid are found, then it cannot be classified as an
abnormality.
The GENOPTYPE (human female mitochondrial DNA only) DOES NOT
match the PHENOTYPE (skeletal structure and size of the
humanoid). But yeah, there is no proof whatsoever that it is an
ET.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0igIqTX7g&feature=player_embedded
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyhRaLNSEjI&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 2643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 5, 2015, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
Excellent info!
Surly said, [quote]... many of the pieces of evidence he cites
can not be conveniently explained away. [/quote]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
[quote]Such as this, from his FB page... Enjoy.[/quote]
[img
width=750]
HTML https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10922852_10153082248237354_5623713398214808924_o.jpg[/img]
Love that map! I'm saving it for some future debating fun.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> [img width=60
height=50]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 2649--------------------------------------------------
Rephaim is the Hebrew word for GIANTS
By: AGelbert Date: February 5, 2015, 11:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060215011125.png[/img]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jx3vVSSfEs&feature=player_embedded
Evidence of giants is not limited to the Bible. Yet
Archeologists do not admit the fact of their existence outside
of describing them as "anomalies" or an infrequent normal human
genetic variation. WHY? ???
Is being a smaller and weaker Homo SAP an "evolutionary
advantage" in nature?
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>Sure, you don't need as much food, but tell that to the animal
predator that hunts you or the ruminant prey you hunt that
outruns you! :P If giants were common once, we little guys
obviously whipped the big guys so you MIGHT say that little
humans are more "fit" than the big ones. That makes sense ONLY
if we outnumbered them massively because THEY were mostly wiped
out by the catastrophic comet fragment strike about 12,000 years
ago or some other unknown cause. The point is that if their
numbers were similar to ours, we would not be here now. 8)
A smaller, shorter Homo SAP could be the result of DEvolution,
not Evolution. If we are a shorter, weaker version of what we
once were, wouldn't Darwinian Theory (SET) supporting
archeologists have a vested interest in denying it and ensuring
skeletal remains were kept OUT of the museums? [img width=60
height=60]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[quote]Question: "Who were the Rephaim?"
Answer: There are several passages in the Old Testament that
speak of the Rephaim (or Rephaites), and the context describes
them as giants. The name of these people literally means
“terrible ones.”
The Hebrew word Rephaim has two distinct meanings: first, in
poetic literature it refers to departed spirits whose dwelling
place was Sheol. It is a figurative description of the dead,
similar to our concept of a ghost. The second meaning of Rephaim
is “a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.” The
word doesn’t seem to be ethno-centric like “Jew” or “Egyptian”
but is more of a descriptive term. This second meaning will be
the focus of this article.
The first reference to the Rephaim is Genesis 14:5, when the
Rephaim, Zuzim and Emim people were defeated in a battle with
Kedorlaomer and his allies. When the Israelites first approached
the Promised Land after the Exodus from Egypt, they were afraid
to enter the land because it was filled with “giants” (the word
used in Numbers 13:33 is Nephilim), the sons of Anak. Giants
were widely scattered through Canaan, but were known by
different local names, including Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and
Anakim. Deuteronomy 2:20–21 says the Rephaim were strong and
tall, like the Anakites. Og, king of Bashan, was described as
the last of the Rephaim in his land (Deuteronomy 3:11), and his
bed was thirteen feet long and six feet wide.
Is it possible that the Rephaim were literal giants? The
Septuagint uses the Greek words gigas and titanes (the source of
the English titan) to translate these and other verses, so the
ancient Jews certainly considered them to be giants. They are
described generally as being between 7 and 10 feet tall and are
called “mighty men.” The Egyptians wrote about giants who lived
in the land of Canaan, and the folklore of other nations is full
of such references. The people of the ancient world accepted the
presence of giants as a fact of history, and the Bible presents
them as enemies who were destroyed either by the judgment of God
or in battle with men.
So where did these giants come from? One theory, based on
Genesis 6:1–4, is that fallen angels (the sons of God) had
sexual relations with women, resulting in the birth of giants.
This is remarkably similar to Greek and Roman myths about
demi-gods, but the theory has some theological and biological
obstacles. Another theory, also based on Genesis 6, is that the
fallen angels, having knowledge of human genetics, indwelt
certain men and women who would have the right traits to produce
a race of giants and induced them to cohabit with each other. A
third theory is that the giants were simply the result of normal
genetic variability within a society. Whatever the origin of the
Rephaim, it is certain that a race of “giants”—strong, tall
people—did exist at one time, and many cultures had dealings
with them. Even today, there are people who grow to extreme
sizes, whether through genetic disorders like gigantism or
through normal heredity.
[/quote]
Read more:
HTML http://www.gotquestions.org/Rephaim.html#ixzz3QwKEj5nH
#Post#: 2652--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 7, 2015, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin,
Man, was THAT weak. ::) - AND LONG! And then you don't want to
take even 5 or ten minutes, never mind and HOUR, to watch some
video or a portion of it I post here?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/> You want me to wade through all this? I did. Talk about using
a
pack of claims (see the fallacious debating technique you
accused me of using to "try to snow you 8)) to derail the
central issue...
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
[quote author=Ashvin link=topic=4216.msg66757#msg66757
date=1423306065]
THE PARACAS SKULLS: ALIENS, AN UNKNOWN HOMINID SPECIES OR
CRANIAL DEFORMATION?
Sources of dubious (and not-so-dubious) news on the internet
have been getting very excited for the past week or so about
some skulls from Paracas in south-western Perú. According to
these sites, the skulls have been shown to have DNA that proves
them not to be modern Homo sapiens but something else. Depending
on the slant of the site, they are the remains of either an
unknown but earthly species or aliens. Some sites make
comparisons with the Starchild Skull, which has been touted as a
human/alien hybrid. So just how reliable is the news? * [/quote]
* Agelbert NOTE: Leading question used to set up DOUBT in the
mind of the reader. An intelligent person stops reading right
there. But I'm not too bright so I went on to see what they
claim to have DISPROVING THE CLAIMS - Yeah, it's CLEAR right
HERE that the aim of the article is to do a HIT PIECE on the
Paracas skulls.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Some significant admissions about the skulls by the article at
the start to convince the reader that the writer is OBJECTIVE:
[img width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> ;)
Background
[quote]
... best South American textiles ever found.
... quality of their grave gifts suggests that they were of high
status
Comparisons have also been made between the later Paracas
textiles and those of the Nasca Culture, suggesting another
relationship.
It is generally accepted that the Nasca culture derives from the
Paracas Necropolis Culture.
... cotton nets may be evidence for fishing.[/quote]
[quote]So far, so good.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Many of the high status burials of the Paracas Necropolis
Culture have deformed skulls, which are [size=10pt]usually
believed [/size]to be deliberately induced using boards and
weights. These result, in extreme cases, in skulls that are
elongated into tall conical shapes. No two are alike and all are
believed to have denoted high status in Paracas Necropolis
Culture society.[/quote]
Agelbert NOTE: The word "many" is a red herring to fool you into
believing a little further down that ALL the cone heads are the
result of cranial deformation.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
And "BELIEF" has nothing to do with it. Science has two
designations for [i]Homo sapiens cone head skulls, cranial
deformation and cranial malformation; the former is forced and
the latter is genetic. BOTH have the same brain pan size. HERE
is where this article gets into perfidy territory.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
[b]SEE TYPICAL HIT PIECE RHETORIC:
[quote]Brien Foerster (described as a “Canadian-Peruvian
anthropologist” by Amazon, although it would be more accurate to
describe him as a tour operator), Childress suggests that the
phenomenon is not one of cranial deformation. [/quote]
[quote].. the presence of a large wormian bone at the
parietal/occipital interface is said to demonstrate
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
the primitive nature of this people
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
...Because of the high incidence of such bones among the
indigenous peoples of the Andes, they are sometimes known as
Inca bones.[/quote]
Get it? You don't? You call the above "science"!!!?
Inca=indigenous=primitive=cone heads= nothing to see here, move
along.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> Hey, the Spaniards were doing the, "Injuns are stupid savages
"
thing LONG before Darwin wanted to make monkeys of the "lesser
races", pal!
Childress, Foerster and Pye are all attacked with such
"scientific" terms as "It appears that Childress and Foerster
cannot adduce any recent ..." and "... ignorance of
archeological dating techniques" and so on.
I am not going to waste time with these unprovable bits of
defamation and character assassination. It is an established
fact that carbon dating is ONE thing and DNA is another, MUCH
HARDER, thing (getting usable DNA from a 2000 year old molar is
quite difficult - getting the C-14 ratio is much easier). And
even if it's just a modern DNA test to determine paternity.
electrophoresis of fresh DNA is EASY compared with ancient DNA.
The author DELIBERATELY conflates the two in order to cast
aspersions on Brien Foerster. Then he throws in lots of big
words to show the readers that "knows what he is talking about".
Well, he DOES know how to do a hit piece. However, science deals
with FACTS, not "it appears", "it is generally accepted" and so
on. He does NOT know what he is talking about, chiefly evidenced
by the FACT that he NEVER mentions cranial MALFORMATION!
It's clear he is out to "get" Childress et al. His "This is a
non-story" says it ALL. A true scientist would objectively
request a thorough DNA study of hundreds of skulls based on the
immense importance of finding evidence of a separate homind
species that was honored so much that our branch tried to
imitate it by forcing baby skulls into that shape. A true
scientist would want to put all the claims to rest with
evidence, no innuendo. This article is TRASH.
Some "interesting", but clever
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp,<br
/>phrase usages:
[quote]
ENTER Lloyd Pye.
Brien Foerster managed to persuade...
[color=navy][b]...Lloyd Pye (1946-2013), [b]a crank who believed
in ancient astronauts, the extraterrestrial origins of humanity
and, worst of all, the “Starchild Skull” as an alien/human
hybrid[/b][/quote]
OF COURSE! ANYONE who "believes" (otherwise know as formulating
a hypothesis that ancient peoples were contacted by ETs and
proceeding to test it) ET "stuff" HAS to be a CRANK!. How
scientific of the writer to help the reader KNOW which way the
wind is blowng in this article.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
[quote]"This suggests that, ..." , [/quote]
That phrase is as unscientific as you can get in wanting to
disprove a claim. The fact is that it is posted, not to DISPROVE
the claim (because it has NOT been disproved), but to discredit
the claimant. But the reader is left with the, very deftly
placed, impression that Foerster and Pyle are con artists,
whackos or both.
Yes, the author LOVES to SUGGEST. Such a scientific fellow...
Here's an EXCELLENT example of world class hit piece pseudo
scientific doubletalk:
[quote]A Paracas skull: note the dimple toward the top of the
head, which is a product of head-binding, depressing the suture
between the parietal plates that Brien Foerster claims does not
exist.[/quote]
The above statement is TRUE! But the referenced skull is a head
boarded or rope tied cranial DEFORMATION skull with what might
be some trepanation! Whether Brien Foerster's claim applies to
THIS skull (I seriously DOUBT IT!) is not mentioned. How
convenient.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>At the start of the article, the author said "many". Yup, that
is one of the "many". BUT IT"S NOT ONE OF THE FEW 20% larger
brain pans sized NOT deformed OR MAL formed cone heads!
[quote]It gets worse[/quote]
IT SURE DOES. At this point he goes for the jugular to make sure
the reader is left with a VERY bad taste in his mouth for the
researchers. And it's all based on focusing almost exclusively
on the Homo sapiens cone head deformation (with some "star
child" fun thrown in to help the ridicule along
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).
[quote]I am surprised that a geneticist would make this
statement[/quote]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
MORE innuendo. ::)
[quote]Now, this statement troubles me.[/quote]
[quote]Well, our anonymous geneticist goes on to classify Sample
3A as “a new human-like creature”.[/quote]
NOW the geneticist is taking the reader for a ride too? Never
fear, our bold author will straighten it all out for you and
then humbly claim he finds the conduct and announcements of the
geneticist to be "curious"...
WHO THE FUCK IS THIS GUY WRITING THIS CRAP?
The OBVIOUS mocking, stuffed shirt tone in this next paragraph
is something that, along with all those nice big words, Ashvin
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
[quote]So it''s not actually unrelated to the rest of the animal
kingdom. That''s a relief.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/> However, it’s “very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals a
nd
Denisovans”, whatever that is supposed to mean. Neanderthals
(Homo neanderthalensis) and Denisovans (exact species not yet
determined, although members of the genus Homo) are extinct
homini[s]n[/s]ds whose distribution was restricted to Europe and
western Asia: one would not expect to find them in South
America. If the mtDNA of Sample 3A really is “very distant from
Homo sapiens”, the only homini[s]n[/s]d so far known from the
New World, does this mean that the geneticist considers it to be
another species within the genus Homo or a member of an entirely
separate genus. This is something I would expect them to give an
opinion on and I find it curious that they apparently
:icon_scratch: have not.
What is even more curious is the statement that “I am not sure
it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree”. This is
worryingly ambiguous and can be taken in two ways. It might mean
that Sample 3A derives from a species whose position in the
homini[s]n[/s]din lineage cannot yet be determined, but which
might one day. I suspect that this is not the intended meaning
though. Given the thrust of the rest of the statement, I suspect
that it is meant to imply that the mtDNA belongs to a species
entirely outside the homini[s]n[/s]d
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
lineage.
In other words, it's leaving open the possibility that we should
regard the sample as deriving from an alien. There does not
appear to be any consideration given to the likelihood that the
odd features of the mtDNA recovered are not “mutations unknown
in any human, primate or animal” but a result of contamination
(after all, the skulls were excavated in the 1920s and we do not
know the conditions under which they have been stored, how much
they have been handled, whether any procedures have been used to
stabilize them and so on) or errors in the laboratory[/quote]
Get it? Question Darwin and you are whacko! The FACT that it is
unrelated to a common sample of DNA MEANS more research is
required, NOT that it is ALIEN, like the author tries to assume
is the ONLY intent of the geneticist. And the old
"contamination" TRICK is par for the course when a new finding
contradicts the consensus (see Mary Shweitzer). ;)
The author does NOT ask for more testing but, in fact, continues
to state, with his constant fecal flow of words like "curious,
worrying, and so on" that science is being corrupted and this is
all carnival Ripley's Believe it or Not baloney.
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
At the end, and quite conveniently, he IGNORES the FACT that
widely dispersed human ancient primitive cultures practiced head
boarding to distinguish their LEADERS.
He TOTALLY shit canned the "so far, so good" part of this
article that DOVETAILS with the high status of cone heads in
their societies, NOT just in Paracas. WHY? Because that was put
there to adopt a guise of objectivity that the author lacks.
[quote]... best South American textiles ever found.
... quality of their grave gifts suggests that they were of high
status
Comparisons have also been made between the later Paracas
textiles and those of the Nasca Culture, suggesting another
relationship.
It is generally accepted that the Nasca culture derives from the
Paracas Necropolis Culture.
[/quote]
The stuff about what is "known" and what is not "known" about
the Paracas cultures is irrelevant filler thrown in to confuse
the issue.
The issue is the skulls.
[quote]
Altering the shape of the skull also alters its
[color=red]volume ;), despite Foerster’s claim that it does not
[edited 19.2.2014 by KJF-M].
Although small variations away from normal volume can be
produced,[/color] they are not significant; however, while
Foerster claims that the capacity of the skulls is too great for
Homo sapiens, this is not the case: the Paracas skulls have an
average capacity of 1600 cm3 and the human range is up to 1800
cm3 and they therefore fall well within the normal distribution
range.[/quote]
The above is the MOTHER LODE of duplicity. WHY?
Because MOST of the Paracas skulls are cranial deformations of
Homo sapiens! (see any discussion of AVERAGE wealth in the
USA!). "Well within capacity of 1600 cm[sup]3[/sup]" is true of
them on the AVERAGE.
But the ones that are NOT cranially deformed, and have what he
claims is a "primitive" bone structure, have a 20% larger brain
pan AND denser bone RIGHT NEXT to Homo sapiens cranially
deformed cone heads that DO fit the normal brain pan range. This
is typical doubletalk. He flat REFUSES to separate the
"primitive" LOL! skulls from the others. He will NOT GO TO THE
"it's another species" route, PERIOD!. How fucking convenient!
He even threw BIGFOOT in at the end, LOL!
The finishing touches of "Nobody believes this guy. He's hurting
for cash" and so on are really low class.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
[quote]In summary, this is a non-story.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif
[img
width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
There is nothing at all unusual ::) about the population of the
Paracas Necropolis Culture, apart from the extreme nature of the
head-binding they practiced.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>
DNA or no DNA, they are fully human:
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
every aspect of
their skulls can be explained in terms of genetics (such as the
large wormian bone)
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
and
culture (such as the cranial deformation).
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
Any
statements to the contrary contain a mixture of deliberate
deception, ignorance of anthropology, lack of archaeological
knowledge and jumping to wild conclusions using “sketchy” data.
They are not evidence for aliens
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
or an
otherwise unknown hominin species.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>;)[/quote]
Who taught this guy to spell hominid with an "N" at the end?
:icon_mrgreen: I know, I'm being picky but, hey ,we ARE talking
about human skulls and this guy claims to know is anthropology
science, does he not?
Ashvin,
I already discussed the difference between cranial DEformation
(rope or board cranial plate growth forcing)and cranial
MALformation (genetic but still Homo sapiens) as well as the
NON-rope or board cranial formation unrelated to MAL (genetic)
formation. The artcle ignores the third, and most significant
evidence.
Often in the Deformed cone head skulls (but not always),
trepanation (making a small hole in the skull) was done because
of pain from the cranial plates forced to grow in this fashion.
It has already been CLEARLY evidenced that MOST of the Paracas
skulls are cranial DEformations with IDENTICAL sized brain pans
to Homo Sapiens. MALformations are not evidenced there. Genetic
MALformations of the cranium, according to dysmorphologist M.D.s
that study cranial formation, always produce asymmetric skull
plates (one side is shaped noticably different hat the other
side). However, a small percentage (No Ashvin, not just ONE of
them - there are several) have 20% GREATER brain pan size that
Homo sapiens.
DEformed or MALformed skulls DO NOT have any appreciable
increase in brain pan size OR skull weight. Your article pulls
the old "average" skull capacity BULLSHIT to bypass the unique,
un-Deformed craniums.
I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream
archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by
these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the
issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether
they are a different hominid species.
IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then,
can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by
our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:
1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans
before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for
tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe
enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely
diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird
things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT
not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.
2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as
evidenced by funeral garb.
We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if,
it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher
bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT
genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs
of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the
product of hominid speciation.
THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is
confirmed:
Is their any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not
limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of
astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or
high tech artifacts such as machines?
These articles with "enter this guy and enter that guy (liar for
money! ;)) are not germain when we HAVE skulls to test. FUCK
the claims, pal! Let's get the DNA evidence for or against
speciation. The rest is "he said, she said" propaganda used for
the purpose of increasing the credibility of mainstream
archeologists poo pooing a claim that calls their methodology
and scientific integrity in to question while simultaneously
casting aspersions on a non-credential individual investigating
the cone heads.
YOU should NOT CARE, Ashvin, about what people SAY when you have
skull evidence to analyze. The fact that the overwhelming
majority of the skulls are BOTH deformed and show evidence of
trepanation only means that MOST of those people where probably
Homo Sapiens. Even that must be corroborated by DNA analysis.
A long article on deforming a skull 101 does not do SHIT to
address the 20% larger brain pan size. Citing "average size does
even less! And when that article starts attacking some
non-credentialed researcher that might or might not be making a
pile of money on the admittedly wild eyed idea that some of the
cone heads were ET's, it's CLEAR that the article is a hit piece
lacking objectivity and should be given circular file treatment.
I keep trying to get you to focus on the ANOMALOUS evidence. You
keep trying to point at the portion that is run of the mill to
establish the case that pecuniary motives of unscrupulous
researchers "proves" the anomalous evidence is a fabrication. No
it does not! Only DNA evidence does that. And the author of your
article is allergic to DNA evidence.
So, let's stick to, "Are the GENUINE cone heads evidence of
speciation or not?". Pointing at the money grubbers is a really
tired tactic. But you give it an amazing amount of importance in
formulating your conclusions so I will continue to emphasize the
vacuity of using that possibility as a premise spring board to
disbelieve all claims.
ARE THE CONE HEADS THAT ARE NEITHER Deformed or Malformed with
20% greater brain pan size and higher bone density evidence of a
NON-Homo sapienshominid?
ONLY DNA analysis will answer THAT! The author of your article
does not believe there is any evidence of hominid speciation.
Genetics is how real scientists address the issue of hominid
speciation:
[quote]Gorillas are humans' closest living relatives after
chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of
human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and
analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla,
and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We
propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent
with placing the human-chimpanzee and human-chimpanzee-gorilla
speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago.
In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee
than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding
genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape
evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression.
We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species,
estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million
years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange
and a population bottleneck in the eastern species. [/quote]
HTML http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22398555
HTML http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22398555
In other words, speciation evidence is found ONLY in the DNA.
But the author of your article says, QUOTE "DNA or no DNA, they
are fully human:..." UNQUOTE
And you believe him.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
The video below is very nuts and bolts. [img width=60
height=50]
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>It's only 21 minutes and covers all the bases NOT covered in t
he
article Ashvin posted.
Outside of his hair style :P (which is not conducive to the
awarding of Nobel Prizes :icon_mrgreen:), I feel the speaker is
credible, honest and forthcoming about what he can prove and
what he cannot prove. The interviewer asks the right questions.
enjoy.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-032.gif
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jXqzp716A&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 2654--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2015, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have been pondering the following question:
If I was an Egyptian 5,000 years ago and I wanted to make a
stone surface really, really flat, how would I go about it?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp
Well, let's see now, what is the flattest surface I have ever
seen in my life in the land of the Nile (no jokes, ya hear? This
is serious business! I'm trying to do some high tech stuff with
low tech hand jobs - Wipe that smile off your face!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
;D).
Flat tires? NOPE, they didn't have tires. Flat women? NOPE, the
human anatomy can be subject to certain bits of low class humor
but it is, according to Stephen Hawking, definitely not
macroscopically flat, never mind near microscopically flat.
Therefore being flat-assed broke is not applicable to this bit
of scientific inquiry. And when I knocked my stone cutting
supervisor flat, he still made a lumpy appearance laying on the
ground.
:
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
You see, we had a bit of a discussion about "flatness".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
He said my work is
not flat enough for Pharaoh standards. He said a lot more than
that but this is PG discussion. ;)
The altercation aside, what my stupidvisor did was pour some
water on the workpiece I am putting my heart, soul and most of
the copper and sand in Egypt into! That water did NOT run off my
workpiece.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
I stared at
the stupidvisor and told him, this is flat!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
HE smirked and went over to three nondescript areas of my piece
and said, NOPE! Those areas were slightly drier than the rest of
the piece. :( :P He said the water must look the SAME over the
entire piece without running off at minimum thickness or I may
find myself in the salt mines soon where high caliber precision
is not required...
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
I let him have it. POW, right in the kisser! It's a good thing
he is my sister's half cousin or I would be Nile crock food
right now. 8)
After I apologized and promised to work on the slight
imperfections, he took out his hair measuring gizmo and showed
me some places in the stone where there were depressions in the
water a few hairs DEEPER than the acceptable Pharaoh stone
flatness standard. :P
That means I have to work the WHOLE PIECE down to those levels.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp<br
/>That means another two months to get this 43 cubit rock up to
snuff instead of a few days. And never mind the amount of copper
I need for THAT!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-020.gif
My stupidvisor did not smirk again but he did say all my lunch
breaks were cancelled until I got these 43 cubits by 14 cubits
exactly RIGHT!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
GROAN!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Egypt sucks! I'm going to the twenty first century and pretend
this never happened!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>i]
The point of the above thought exercise is to try to think like
an ancient Egyptian. The flattest thing they ever saw in their
entire lives was the surface of water in a pool with no wind.
That IS pretty flat. Is it microscopically flat? I'll let you
know when I do some research. Of course, they had ICE in those
days too. BUT NOT IN EGYPT unless the climate was much different
han it is now:
[quote]
Climate of Egypt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Egypt essentially has a hot desert climate (Köppen climate
classification BWh). The climate is generally extremely dry all
over the country except on the northern Mediterranean coast
which receives more rainfall in winter. In addition to rarity of
rain, extreme heat during summer months is also a general
climate feature of Egypt although daytime temperature are
obviously more moderated along the northern coast.
The prevailing winds from the Mediterranean Sea continuously
blow over the northern coast without the interposition of an
eventual mountain range and thus, greatly moderate temperatures
throughout the year. Because of this effect, averages low
temperature vary from 9.5 °C (49.1 °F) during wintertime to 23
°C (73.4 °F) to summertime and averages high temperatures vary
from 17 °C (62.6 °F) during wintertime to 32 °C (89.6 °F) in
summertime.[/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Egypt
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Egypt
So only some wild dudes that went in reed boat ships to colder
places had ever seen ice. And when they DID see it, it was
moving around a lot. :emthdown:
There are a few rocks, like flag stones, that naturally split
into fairly flat surfaces. Perhaps the Egyptian craftsmen had
seen flagstones. But flagstones are okay to walk on put they
crap compared with Egyptian workpieces. Nevertheless, the
ancients had a THING fro making their stone cut surfaces
extremely flat. That certainly makes sense if you are going pile
one on top of the other and wish to get a building or pyramid
that doesn't resemble a drunken sailor.
Assuming (now I'm getting in trouble here for sure.
:icon_mrgreen:) that the REASON the ancient wanted their work to
have a flat surface was because they wanted to put other pieces
on top, then there would be no need to make the SIDES equally as
flat, right? Wrong?
Sure, aesthetically, a nice long rectangular solid is more
pleasing than one with wavy walls but this is something that is
important in analyzing what they did and why they did it.
We know they OBVIOUSLY quarried the stones. We know where the
quarry is (about 500 miles from the main monuments to this that
and the other [s]ET[/s] ;D giant gods that preferred sitting to
standing - AHA! Scientific proof that the Egyptians were pretty
laid back. Settle down Ashvin, I'm kidding! ;)).
Now if they used the handy dandy hair meter I invented ex nihilo
in my quest to come up with a LOW TECH device they could have
had back then to measure flatness, they needed to combine it
with the molecular adhesive quality of water to create a thin
film over a flat surface.[i] No, they didn't need to understand
molecules to know water is rather flat and, if it doesn't run,
the surface it is on is really flat.
Water, because of its hydrogen bonds, WILL try to go "uphill"
with the surface because it is attracted to itself. However, it
will thin out somewhat (water is VERY elastic - I know this
because I have studied tree transpiration - water in the
tracheal capillaries of a tree can be stretched to 1/26th or so
of it's normal density AS LONG as the vacuum holds inside the
tree - That's how it climbs up to the leaves from the roots -
Test on Monday.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)<br
/>. A craftsman with a good eye will see the water thinned out i
n
some areas and, with a hair gage, could find depressions that
the human eye could not detect. Yes, the "hair" gage would have
to be treated with a hydrophobic substance (a bit of olive oil
might do it!) to keep the water molecules from climbing up the
gage and ruining the reading, so to speak.
But once they got the TOP surface so flat that they needed to
attack Cyprus (the copper mining mecca of that time period)
because they were going through the copper stash like there was
no tomorrow, they would HAVE to rotate the workpiece so all four
sides, one at a time, became the TOP for flattening.
Well Doomers, do you think this would work? Has anybody done the
math on the amount of copper and sand they need to do what they
did? Everyone knows sand is abrasive. It is abrasive BECAUSE it
has some very hard rocks in it. Yes, it has soft rocks that wear
away too but THOSE aren't the ones that make sand do what it
does. If you don't believe me but talcum powder on your sand
paper.
Stocks' hypothesis is that there was enough copper, combined
with the aid of sand abrasives, to do all this by hand. With the
water technique I dreamed up, perhaps it is possible IF hey had
enough copper and IF they had enough man power NOT tied up in
growing food or whipping the slaves into shape. Egypt was NOT
exactly a "life of leisure" for anybody but the Pharaoh (and the
"priesthood" of course - those guys always have an angle
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>).
The biggest elephant in the Stocks hypothesis (he alleges they
did it by hand by using copper tools to drill limestone,
producing rather crude - by ancient Egyptian standards, work. He
also has not demonstrated successfully that the copper and sand
technique works on Marble or Granite) is TIME. The time it is
estimated those monuments took to complete is way too low, in my
opinion, for the massive amount of product, as evidenced by so
much expertly cut stone laying around, of many, many flat
surfaces and circular drilling.
How long did it take to build these things? That is really
important. They need skilled craftsmen working quickly for, say,
a 25 year period with machine tools. They needed perhaps a
century or more to do it by hand with quite a bit of labor
dedicated exclusively to this effort. Yes, the monuments were
apparently built at different times and on different schedules
so it is a huge bag of worms to try to pin it down.
I'll get back to you on how flat water adhesion on a flat
surface can achieve as far as tolerances. If you van get .01 or
better, that may be how they did it. But I don't have an answer
to the extremely precise circular drilling and the feed rate
consistency, the lathe quality work when they weren't supposed
to have them and for the machine tool marks.
Eddie, you do a lot of drilling. Help me out here. I made a
hollow "drill bit" out of some copper tubing to drill some wood
years ago for a project I was working on (needed a big bit). I
hacksawed some teeth on it and went to town. It lasted about 3
days. Harwood eats copper pretty quick.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> I used a power drill. If it had been by hand with some sand,
maybe I would get more out of it but I do not see how copper can
work successfully on marble or granite, even if you have an
unlimited supply from Crete or Cyprus (or whoever they plundered
to get copper in those days - I'm sure it wasn't free!) to throw
at it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp
#Post#: 2659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2015, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I have no f***ing idea. LOL.
I do question the efficacy of soft metal cutting instruments on
hard stone (even with an added abrasive), although I'm no expert
on quarrying or drilling rocks. It does sound iffy to me. They
did cut them somehow, with some kind of tech. I'd posit we
haven't yet considered all the possibilities.
Even aliens would have had their work cut out for them.[/quote]
Eddie said, [quote]Even aliens would have had their work cut out
for them.[/quote]
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif
[center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif[/center]
[center][img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AGgW9B718b8/maxresdefault.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 2662--------------------------------------------------
Is the surface of water ever "perfectly" flat?
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2015, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent discussion of precision flatness in water and molten
tin too!
Full thread is at this link: [img width=75
height=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/img]
HTML http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/is-the-surface-of-water-ever-perfectly-flat.105777/
Strantor
Is the surface of water ever "perfectly" flat?
Before anybody goes off on a bent about "perfectly," let me
explain; No, I'm not an Indian graduate student. When I say
"perfectly" I mean by a machinist's standards; does it pass the
test of a surface plate's flatness spec (like accurate to
.0001").
I know there's either a concave or convex meniscus at the edge,
and I know that the surface of the water will follow the
curvature of the surface of the earth. But what I don't know, is
if I were able to "freeze" (not as in freeze by cold temperature
turning it into ice, which would change the size & shape, but
"freeze" as in magically make it turn instantly solid without
morphing) a bathtub full of water, would I have a "perfectly"
flat surface in the middle, say 1" in from the edges? Or would
it still have some radius (a tigher radius than the earth's
radius) to it, like it's just the surface of one giant water
droplet that just happens to be in a bathtub?
Glenn Holland
Except for surface tension at the edges and with no motion, the
surface should be almost flat.
Other liquids such as molten tin exhibit near flatness and the
surface can be used as a reference and also a mold for casting
other flat shapes. s an example, plate glass is made by applying
molten glass over the surface of molten tin.
BR-542
In your bathtub example, in theory, the inside surface area
would have a curvature to it. It would be slight. The curvature
would have a radius R, to the center of gravity of the earth.
You can get damn close with a machined surface to true
flatness.
Probably the closest we can get to flatness is.........a
stretched sheet of graphene.
MikeML
Dont forget about the Moon's gravitational attraction.
BR-542
Absolutely. The first bathtub curve will be modulation by a
second and inverse curve with radius r.....to the center of
gravity of the moon.
#12
I once had a conversation with a structural engineer about using
a water level vs a laser level on a large building. Something
like 1000 feet and you're out of spec for, "flat" with the water
level.
He never answered me. Probably because his daddy was an
engineer and "forced" him to get a 4 year degree. It worked.
He's financially secure and can't figure out how structures were
built before lasers were available.
Anyway, I did the math to get the 1000 foot number, and you can
too...if you care enough.
X^2 Y^2 Radius = 4000 miles etc.
Do the math and find out how flat bath tub water is!
Strantor
Alright I'll take a stab at it, but first, ...
If you're looking for level, I say, a hose full of water is the
only thing that's going to give you a true level.
If you use a bubble level or laser, you're shooting two tangent
lines out from your position on the face of the earth, into
space. if you were run your level or laser in either direction
along that line, as soon as you leave dead center (where you
took the measurement), you're going to be off by more and more
****hairs the further you go out.
So, having said that, I'll use the Distance to the Horizon
formula in order to determine the difference between FLAT and
LEVEL, at 1000ft.
distance to horizon formula:
d = 1.22h
d = distance in miles
h = height in ft
Rearrange to solve for h:
h=d/1.22
h=0.1894mi/1.22 = 0.15525ft = 1.863"
Now confirm with Pythagorean theorem:
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090215193625.png
A^2+B^2=C^2
436,957,148,390,400ft2 + 1,000,000ft2 = c^2
C=20,903,520.02391941642909571014096ft
C-A = 0.02391941642909571014096ft = 0.287033"
Big difference there. I suspect the Pythagorean theorem is the
closer one to correct. What was your number?
Anyway, same Pythagorean method substituting in my 4ft instead
of your 1000ft, yields .00000459253" over 4ft. Good enough for
me ;)
Agelbert NOTE: Me too! Water is REALLY FLAT! :o 8) The
question is, HOW could the ancient Egyptians, who probably were
quite good at math before Pythagoras (thanks to [s]ET[/s] ;D
previous knowledge from maybe the Sumerians), make use of this
BETTER THAN .001" water flatness precision?
Water WILL follow rock surface contours to a degree. So, on a
planed marble surface, it will not be as flat as in a still pool
of water. But there is a limit to high much it will climb before
it starts stretching and thinning out.
I'll get back to you. [img width=75
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180936.jpeg[/img]
[img width=600
height=300]
HTML http://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/copper_slabbing_saw_dry_sand_abrasive_experiment.jpg[/img]<br
/>[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
Man, those [s]ETs[/s] ancient Egyptians were smart "copper"
using cookies, weren't they
Ashvin? ;D
#Post#: 2663--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 9, 2015, 10:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://extraterrestrialcontact.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Egyptian-Skulls-Elongated-11175skulls.jpg
The Egyptians wore funny hats to fool people into thinking they
had weird, but SYMMETRICAL, upper crust status skulls. Now
where have we seen THAT before?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
But if the top brass really had skulls shaped like that, as the
EVIDENCE supports (Google it!), and they were NOT cranial
deformations or malformations but the result of genetic
modification, a little knowledge (to put mildly!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
of transfer DNA in LIFE
processes might have helped get that result. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
The Ankh looks like the Transfer DNA molecule. What better way
to communicate to posterity that you knew a thing or three about
GMOing a human? :icon_mrgreen:
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090215233226.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=680]
HTML https://verumetinventa.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/d524a-ankh1.jpg[/img]
The ankh (/ˈæŋk/ or /ˈɑːŋk/;
Egyptian: IPA: [ʕaːnax]; U+2625 ☥ or U+132F9
𓋹), also known as breath of life, the key of the Nile or
crux ansata (Latin meaning "cross with a handle"), was the
ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic character that read "life", a
triliteral sign for the consonants ꜥ-n-ḫ.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh
SNIPPET from a 2005 article:
U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid
by Rick Weiss, Washington Post
February 13th, 2005
The decision letter to Newman notes that many people have heart
valves from pigs. A patent has even issued on the use of baboon
cells in people to aid in organ transplantation. Those
procedures, the letter says, "did not convert the human patient
to a non-human."
Similarly, mice that have up to 1 percent human brain cells in
their skulls are clearly mice, said Stanford University
biologist Irving Weissman, one of the scientists who helped make
hybrid rodents.
The tricky part, all agree, is what to do with the middle
ground. Weissman and others, for example, have talked about
their desire to make mice whose brains are made entirely of
human brain cells.
A preponderance of "H"'s Greely, a professor of law and director
of Stanford's Center for Law and the Biosciences, said even
those animals would not seem very human to him. "But a chimp
brain with human neurons. . . ."
That's exactly the kind of scenario that makes Rifkin, Newman
and others want a total ban.
"If the U.S. Congress and president are not willing to do this
now, then there is no door that will remain closed to an era of
commercial eugenics," Rifkin said. "We'll be on our way to that
brave new world that Aldous Huxley warned us about."
Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics,
agreed that Congress should at least get involved.
"The patent office is not the place for society to make its
moral decisions," Kass said.
Weldon, the Florida representative, said he is interested in
providing such guidance -- and believes the public would favor
restrictions.
"There's instant public revulsion when you start talking with
the average person about this stuff." For starters, Weldon said,
"I'd like to ban the creation of human embryos with animal genes
in them."
But many scientists fear that Congress is likely to overreact.
"There are chimeras out there that serve very valuable purposes
in medical research, such as mice that make human antibodies,"
said Michael Werner, chief of policy for the Biotechnology
Industry Organization. "This is sufficiently technical
scientifically that it should be left to scientific bodies like
the National Academy of Sciences to decide." [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=1581
HTML http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=1581
#Post#: 2665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
By: AGelbert Date: February 10, 2015, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100215152646.png[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page